Crysis Console Vs PC Comparison: Which version looks better?

"Four years have passed and still there are a few gaming PCs around that can run Crysis at maximum setting and resolution. Recently Crytek and EA announced that the four year old shooter is making its way on consoles, the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. We decided to compare some recently released screenshots of the console version and what we did was fire up our beastly PC and compared the exact locations. Mind you we made the resolution 720p but with all the settings on high."

The screenshots were obviously taken with bias towards the consoles tbh.

The consoles will simply not have enough power to handle the complex shaders that the game uses (sub surface scattering, atmospheric scattering, parralax mapping etc).

Also, the PC screenshots were downscaled to those silly low-res images used in the article which causes quite a lot of blurring and makes the textures look low res.

Just wait until it's actually out on consoles then the differences will be obvious.

Heres a video of the differences in motion: http://www.youtube.com/watc... but, it is also taken with a bit of bias towards PC I will admit - but at least its actually the same scenes and not totally different parts of the environment like this article.

Also fyi, a PC to max out crysis at 1080p with 50-70fps today costs about £600 (I built one yesterday for a friend with new components). My PC from 2008 that cost £800 can very nearly max it out at 1680x1050 but only at about 30-40fps so it has a lot of input lag which makes it hard to play with a mouse but it feels fine with a controller.

This article is a joke.. that level has different times of day... so they took a screenshot of when the sun first rises for the pc version and a screenshot of a brighter full noon looking version for the 360/ps3.. and then they say the console version is better. hahhaa your not gonna fool people who actually played crysis ... dumb writer dumb article.

This is freaking Gamingbolt. One of the worst sites out there. You will not find a legit comparison here. They are laughing their ass off knowing they just disturbed the PC ant nest on purpose, just to gain hits. So far, they've done a good job at that.

they will gut this game port to cryengine 3 lower texture rez to the rez of those in crysis 2 and switch to their new deferred ligting and shadow system.

Come on people. dont fool yourselves if they couldnt get crysis 2 to be the best looking game on consoles, they have no chance of doing so with arguably the best looking game released on pc. absolutely bogus.

5 the geometry invovled in the original crysis was and still is impossible on consoles, everything will be changed trees and foliage will be less dense and less responsive to shockwaves if shockwaves even make it into the game.

6 volumetric explosions will be gone as well as volumetric clouds.

7 draw distance will at least be cut in half.

8 lod aa af, will be cut in 1/4 ao Parallax occlusion mapping will be nonexistant as well.

9 specular vegetation will only be used on plants with big leaves, like palm trees and those big leaved plants.

all of this will be missing in order to cram this sandbox into 6 year old hardware please dont kid yourselves.

and it will all be justified by the "New Color grading" that will do little more than change the colors of a severely handicapped version of the original CRYSIS.

at least it will be at 720p right.

i get disappointed when people dont understand performance cost/visual fidelity are directly proportional.

Sub-HD? Check. Crytek using bullshots again by releasing blown up "1080p" screen shots of a sub-HD game? Check. Pretty much nonexistent anti-aliasing? Check. "Remastered in HD"? How, if the console versions aren't HD and the PC version supported native 1080p from the go? Check. Laughable downgrade in textures? Check.

Good job on the "remastered" port, Crytek.

I'm not even a PC gaming fanboy and I can admit that Crysis on consoles looks like Crysis on low settings with slightly redone lighting.

I'm sure PC elitists are laughing right now and so am I. It is amazing what Crytek can get console fantards to believe.

Just another stupid gaming bolt article. This is one of those questions that doesn't even need to be asked as the answer is obvious. Console only gamers should just be happy that they get to play another awesome game that looks good.

the lighting and game play effects were huge on pc. It is hard to judge which looks better on a still screen image.

@below totally agree. One lousy image really doesn't even begin to compare. I know people are excited about getting Crysis on consoles, but you also have to realize what the game is capable of on a pc to really appreciate it. That image doesn't even begin to showcase why the pc version of Crysis was a graphical masterpiece for its time.

The low resolution shots help to hide the obvious differences you would see playing it on a decent sized, HD screen. Its a terrible comparison, because it is heavily biased towards the console version this way.

As per usual they are putting the PC version up against console, on the console's terms, at low end 720p which hides major asset differences.

For example most Crysis PC textures are 1024 x 1024, and several are 2048 x 2048!!

This is difficult to see in those low res shots. However i have seen a full size console set of shots on LOT, and it is OBVIOUS the console version has no texture bigger than 512 x 512.

Please for the love of god, ignore this awful comparison. It flatters the console version and destroys much of the detail of the PC version i have come to be accustomed to and are very aware of.

Something tells me that this AngelGirl16 has something to do with WariorPrincess, that trolling troll.

Joined not long ago, commenting first on the articles, yeah..could be the same person.

On the side of things, why are people doing pointless comparisons like Crysis PC version vs a console port?? Seriously? Must we place them side by side just to conclude that the PC version *GHASP* looks better than the console port?

I have no idea what you're talking about about but if you read the article and the update. The guy tested the pc version at 720p and the settings all on high. So it really amazing that it looks better than the pc at those settings. This might be too good to be true so we might have to wait until the game is released to compare.

I'm not sure who would pay that much for a PC, but you can build a PC from scratch right now, I'm talkin GPU, CPU, PSU, MOBO, RAM, Sound Card, Case, and any other accessories, and it'd top out at around $600-700 and could run Crysis 1 & 2 maxed @ 1080p with 30fps minimum.

lol naroon, it was a joke *sigh haha. fact is console = 250-300, pc = 600-1000 depending on your monitor and accesories. i have a 1200$ pc i know. it makes gorgeous games far above ps3 and 360 wen it comes to multiplats buuuuut......price difference is a huge hinderance. not sure any1 can afford that wen people complain that ps3 is 250 lol

Hey guys. Something seems bizarre about their comparison and it really doesn't show the differences. I would also like to clarify that the time of day is different in each photo which is extremely misleading.

I believe that site does a much, much, MUCH better job at illustrating the difference between the versions. For instance the lighting appears to have been significantly downgraded and doesn't seem nearly as subtle, and the difference in foliage is extremely noticeable.

But since they're able to "port" Crysis 1 (a game where most PC fans claims that is impossible to do on consoles). It then makes you wonder why Crysis 2 isn't as open as this?

One thing is for sure, there's going to be numerous setbacks with this port considering the scope is bigger. However, the color palette of the new engine gives it a more updated look then the PC counterpart.

As a note, I think it serves great injustice that they had to force a 720p resolution to compare the consoles, bumping the resolution higher to 1080p would've made a very big difference in image quality.

It also should be noted that Crytek seem to have altered the TOD and colour grading for the console versions, unless you have everything on medium with the contrast and brightness wacked up, the game never has that blue hue.

Fraps records at very low res. If you try to crank it up it kills your pc. I wouldnt use fraps to capture anything you need lots of detail or to show off graphics. Also fraps has a max res it supports and its not very high. IF you try to record 3min in fraps at 1080P its like a 100gig file.

@hiredhelp mhm? The XBox uses a PowerPC-CPU, that isn't built by Intel but by AMD (and another dev. when my mind serves me right, I think they built it in a joint-venture). The CPU is thus based upon IBM's PowerPC architecture, has nothing to do with Intel...

You are maybe thinking of Intel Xeon which again has nothing to do with the Xbox...

The Cell-Processors wouldn't do any good for the PC-crowd because they have very limited usability. The raw-processing power might be higher than the usual x86_64-chipsets used nowadays, but it is also highly specific and specialized. The PC-Crowd uses GPU-chipsets in order to achieve the same power, and a regular modern GPU can do much better than the PS3's cell-architecture. The only thing in which the cell-architecture outdoes a modern GPU is distributed-computing, at least that is what they tell is - I don't think that is even true any more. Another thing is that the cell-architecture has a very difficult instruction-set, making it hard to develope on that thing.

Long story short: You really do not want the cell-architecture inside your PC. And if you want - you can order yourself a blade-center, which utilizes cell-architecture.

Also - you might want to begin to read into this stuff as you will realize that the frequenz of a processor isn't really worth being mentioned, especially when you try to compare different architectures against each other.

you'd have to be half retarded to think a 6 year old console can trump hardware that still has trouble running crysis on ultra.

Simple as this, if you own a console and need to look a this graphics shit; you seriously need to consider computer gaming, seriously all these games are already gimmped on consoles just due to the resolution alone; let alone the counless other limitations with graphics.

If you care about gameplay, consoles are GREAT; but if you honestly are a graphics whore, comparing PC games you honestly need to open your eyes.

Even ugly PC games look better then most console games because of the sheer clarity that you have before you, let alone the effects that we have the horsepower to create.

More colorful based on what? I can guarantee you the console versions will be loaded with jaggies. Crytek only releases doctored images captured from computers they build, which have Crysis running max settings and full AA, far beyond 30 frames per second. They also speed up their trailers and add motion blur to hide any imperfections with frame rate or jaggies.

How much you wanna bet Crysis on consoles will barely even be locked at 30 fps and will use a very low standard of AA?

"We decided to compare some recently released screenshots of the console version and what we did was fire up our beastly PC and compared the exact locations. Mind you we made the resolution 720p but with all the settings on high."

Colorful? are you for real? does real life look like rainbows? O dont think so, even an ignorant PS3 fanboy (like me) knows that Crysis on current and 2-3 year old PC hardware rips apart anything consoles can do. Does this even support 8xAA and 16xAF and extreme draw distance? Nah I'm sure not, let me see this sustain a solid 30FPS. lol.